U.S. Senate candidate Michelle Nunn with her husband Ron Martin (left) leave after they voted early for the 2014 Primary at Adamsville Recreation Center in Atlanta on last week. Hyosub Shin, hshin@ajc.com

The only Democratic debate of U.S. Senate candidates to feature Michelle Nunn, an Atlanta Press Club affair, will air at 7 p.m. Monday on Georgia Public Broadcasting.

One of her three rivals, Branko “Dr. Rad” Radulovacki, has already scoped out a topic for discussion.

On the table but not moving in Congress is a bipartisan proposal backed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Atlanta, and others that would once again require Georgia and three other states with histories of discrimination to submit all voting laws to the federal government for “pre-clearance” — rewriting a Voting Rights Act formula the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional last year.

“I firmly believe that all states must be held to the same standards. Georgia should not be singled out for special treatment. The Supreme Court’s decision has put the onus on Congress, and I think it should work to protect the right to vote. It is fundamental to our democracy. I applaud the bipartisan work currently underway to create a nationwide standard for all states, and I look forward to working with those leaders in the Senate.”

Dr. Rad called Nunn’s statement “naive and dangerous,” pointing to the 13 times the U.S. Justice Department has blocked changes to election laws in Georgia over the last 13 years.

But we have heard from a spokesman for the Nunn campaign, who says Nunn is indeed on board with Lewis’ VRA fix.

It’s a question of semantics. Lewis’ legislation would free from U.S. Justice Department oversight any state that has fewer than five voting rights violations within the last 15 years. Which means Georgia would again be subject to pre-clearance.

Nunn spokesman Nathan Click said the confusion was caused when the Georgia League of Women Voters, which compiled the voter guide for the AJC, rejected Nunn’s attempt to use this more specific line in her answer:

“I applaud Rep. Lewis’ bipartisan work to create a nationwide standard for all states, and I look forward to working with him in the Senate.”

Click produced an April 23 rejection note from the LWV that included this:

Our guidelines do not allow direct references to your opposition, other individuals or the naming of other candidates on the ballot.

***

Speaking of U.S. Rep. John Lewis, D-Atlanta: He’s decided to go silent on state Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boggs and other Georgians nominated to the federal bench by the Obama administration. From the AJC’s Bill Rankin and Dan Malloy:

Lewis joined fellow civil rights leaders and Georgia Democrats at Ebenezer Baptist Church in December to denounce the then-slate of six nominees negotiated among White House officials and Georgia’s Republican U.S. senators.

But in a brief interview Wednesday, Lewis said he is no longer trying to throw a wrench into the confirmation process as he speaks with senators about it — a key shift from the influential figure.

Meanwhile, with pre-primary fundraising reports due today, Michelle Nunn’s campaign tells us she raised $840,000 in April for her U.S. Senate bid. That would be slightly ahead of her $2.4 million pace from the first quarter — and money tends to rush in at the end of quarters.

In all, she has raised $6.6 million since entering the race in August. No word yet on how much Nunn spent in April, when she launched TV ads for the first time, and how much she has left.

The political action committee of Flowers Foods, a Georgia company that produces the pillowy sandwich bread, Tastykakes and Nature’s Own baked goods, has given more than 99 percent of its political contributions since 1979 to Republicans. Only three Democratic congressional candidates have gotten money from its PAC since 1984, and not one in the past 20 years.

***

Jack Kingston now has his very own Super PAC. The above positive ad, we’re told, is on the air in Albany and Macon.

Kingston’s longtime buddy Eric Johnson — former state legislator and 2010 gubernatorial hopeful — is behind the effort. Johnson described the effort thusly:

“The Southern Conservatives Fund, Inc. is a group of Georgia-based business owners who support Jack Kingston and are tired of seeing outside special interests try to smear his name and reputation. While other groups have decided to attack fellow Republicans, we are more interested in telling the truth about Jack’s conservative record. Our initial buy is to supplement Jack’s support in critical parts of the state that other candidates have chosen to ignore.”

***

A Rosetta Stone horse-race poll (automated, MOE +/-3.6%) funded by the U.S. Senate campaign of Karen Handel, released Wednesday, puts businessman David Perdue in the lead with 23 percent, Handel within the margin of error at 21 percent, and Jack Kingston, dropping to 15 percent.

Kingston, 59, has not run from his experience or his time in Washington. Instead, he has trumpeted them and has tried to make the warfare inside the GOP an issue. At the candidate forum in this northern exurb of Atlanta, Kingston asked the crowd of about 300: “How many of you think the conservative family is divided? And how many of you know divided we fall?” Most people raised their hands. He spent the next two minutes outlining his career in the House, distancing himself from the loudest voices on the right.

“We have got to win the Senate back, and we can’t do it with rhetoric. We have got to do it with a plan,” he said.

About four in 10 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents classify themselves as supporters of the Tea Party, while 11% are opponents and 48% are neither. This continues to be a significant drop from the Tea Party’s high-water mark in November 2010, when 61% of Republicans were supporters of the Tea Party.

***

Phil Gingrey’s new TV ad provides a rebuttal to David Perdue’s memorable and effective TV spot portraying his opponents as crying babies. Gingrey calls Perdue’s ad “clever, but you deserve better than politics as usual.”

But notice the only two babies that make an appearance: One is named Jack, and the other wears pearls.

***

The Tea Party Express is backing John Stone in the Republican side of the 12th District congressional race. From the California-based group’s executive director Taylor Budowich:

“John was a chief of staff for conservative Congressman John Carter. He also served as president of free market non-profit, U.S. Freedom Foundation. He has been a conservative leader throughout his life and we are confident he will bring that same leadership to Washington, D.C.”

Tea Party Express is also backing Barry Loudermilk in the 11th District and Karen Handel in the U.S. Senate race.

***

The man John Stone hopes to face, U.S. Rep. John Barrow, D-Augusta, continues to break with his party on key votes.

Former Republican congressman John Linder of Gwinnett County, the House’s biggest proponent of scrapping the Internal Revenue Service for a national sales tax, has endorsed Jack Kingston for U.S. Senate. Earlier this week, Linder endorsed state Rep. Donna Sheldon of Dacula in the GOP race for the 10th District U.S. House seat.

[Adelson’s] coalition now includes about a dozen state chapters of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a national alliance of Christian conservatives headed by Ralph Reed, the former executive director of the Christian Coalition.

Adelson has hired two former Faith and Freedom officials, including Gary Marx, a former executive director of the organization. Marx helped build support for legislation that would outlaw Internet gambling.

Reed gained notice for his earlier work on gambling matters during the scandal around disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. At the time, documents showed that Reed worked with Abramoff to block a proposed ban on Internet gambling, receiving funds indirectly from eLottery, a firm marketing online lottery ticket sales.

Reed declined to comment. Adelson advisers and a spokesman for Reed’s group said Reed was not personally involved in signing up his state affiliates.

Georgia Pre-K has been around for so long, it’s not seen as political anymore, if it ever was. “I never looked at this as a partisan issue, honestly,” says Sen. John Albers, a Republican in the Georgia Legislature who represents a district north of Atlanta. He sent both of his children to Georgia Pre-K. “If I had to do it all over again I’d do it two times.”

But the universal nature of Georgia’s program is another key to its success—and that could be a surprising lesson for other states looking to build support for early-education programs. “You’re not going to see Republicans go down to an income-based thing,” says Sen. Fran Millar, another Republican who is a member of the Georgia Senate’s Educaiton and Youth Committee. “It would get political in about six months. It would be about class warfare.”

Archives

First, there
isn’t any legislation needed. The Shelby County
decision was aimed at only one section of the Voting Rights Act – the
preclearance provision, requiring some (mostly southern) jurisdictions to get
permission in advance from the federal government before making any
change related to voting – and the rest of the Act remains in full force,
including other, potent enforcement provisions for every jurisdiction in the
country.

And, indeed, for
better or worse the Justice Department and civil-rights groups are now using
those other provisions to try to advance their agendas, which amount to a war
on voter-ID requirements and ensuring the continued racial gerrymandering
and segregation of voting districts. There’s no evidence that the Left
needs more weapons in its arsenal; all that’s different in the post–​Shelby
County world is that now its lawyers have to prove racial discrimination
before they can get court relief, which is the way that every other
civil-rights law works.

The second
point: Much in the bill has nothing to do with Shelby County at
all. Rather, the Court’s decision is being used as an excuse to enact the
Left’s wish-list in voting policy. In particular, the Left wants to
promote its plaintiffs’ lawyers to the status of the attorney general in making
civil-rights enforcement decisions. All this is a standard demand for
the civil-rights groups whenever they (deservedly) lose a case and run to
Congress.

The Left’s
agenda is, of course, a decidedly color-conscious one. Thus, the bill
itself features racial classifications, and offers protections for “minority
voters” that it withholds from “nonminority” voters.

Key provisions
of the bill attempt to reinstate the “preclearance” provision of the Voting
Rights Act by amending another section of the Act so that it is triggered even
when there has been no constitutional violation, as is now required by that
section. This raises the same sort of constitutional issue that resulted
in the Shelby County decision in the first place, since Congress would
again be acting to limit state prerogatives even though it lacks a
constitutional predicate for doing so.

What’s more, the
new legislation is an attempt to ensure that the Voting Rights Act works
principally as a “disparate impact” statute. This approach to civil-rights
enforcement is favored by the Obama administration, as shown by its new school-discipline “guidance” this year. But
that approach is not about stopping real discrimination; it’s about ensuring
racial proportionality by eliminating legitimate standards and procedures.

I personally think Michelle suffers from the Lucky Gene Pool Club syndrome. These are the fortunate ones among Us who by Virtue of their Birth. Places them in a position where nothing is really required but a Showing of the Face with a Smile and things happen for them. These suffers automatically expect for ALL DOORS to open when they arrive without any demands or questions of their time or thinking. They come with a preconceived plan and notion of ideas. Unconcerned about the Indifference of their words and their impact for such matters really do not apply to them after ALL.

Michelle obviously has not done her homework on this subject and have not delved in the many diverse opinions and belief where Georgia and its People thinks they are and where Georgia really is on its practice. Those are the (2) diverging realities of what needs to be considered. Michelle it seems tends to think that Time has logically put these many issues to rest and there is No need for continuation. But when you consider the many recent changes in Georgia's Voting Laws, one has to think WTF is Michelle thinking?

Michelle Nunn is wise enough to know that some values do not exist forever without evolving over time. And, she knows that government must adjust to the changing perceptions of the citizens of the present. Thomas Jefferson, himself, wrote of that same idea relative to the necessity for the government, itself, to change in order to be in harmony with the evolving perceptions of the populace.

That type of thinking seems to be too "progressive" for some of the posters, who have already put Michelle Nunn's thinking in an erroneous and simplistic box, to understand, as their comments on this thread have revealed.

Yawn. Oldest trick in the book by southern white and other so-called moderate Democrats. They make themselves appear to be moderate by selling out items of lesser importance to blacks, who are going to vote for them anyway, and are going to be generally decided by the courts rather than the ballot box. Meanwhile, on other issues that actually matter to most Americans they hew the liberal line. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman all did the same: holding a few "black issues" at arms length while embracing the rest of the progressive or left-liberal agenda. Opposing the LONG outdated VRA that the civil rights industry still clings to in order to protect their legacy, claim that they are still relevant etc. does not prove that she is moderate.

Instead, see if Nunn is moderate on social issues in a state that is still very socially conservative (Mike Huckabee won the GOP primary in 2008). And no, guns is not a social issue. Example: you are pro-choice? Fine. How about restrictions on the procedure that the Supreme Court has already deemed to be legal, and have been on the books for decades in Pennsylvania (though ignored in the Kermit Gosnell case) and recently enacted in Texas, and are supported by 75% of voters?

And what is Nunn's position in capital punishment? Three strikes laws? Welfare reform? Zell Miller, a legitimate moderate even before he turned further to the right in the U.S. Senate, supported all 3. So did Nunn's father. Nunn's father also did not support climate change/global warming (which was global cooling in the 1970s) based economic regulation. Does Michelle Nunn?

And fiscal issues. Does Michelle Nunn support simplifying the tax code? Does Nunn support real spending cuts to and reform of big entitlement programs like MediCare, Social Security and now ObamaCare?

Education: does Nunn side with the social justice through public education lobby, or does she support real reform, standards and school choice? The leading Democrat running for state superintendent is a pro-reform, pro-school choice Spelman grad who once got into a dustup with the Sons of Confederate Veterans over their battle flag, so obviously you do not have to be a fanatical right wing Tea Partier to support such an agenda, but only a true moderate.

My guess is that because she has not tipped her hand, she is not a true moderate. And the media refuses to hold her feet to the fire because they know that he is not either, but desperately wants the voting public to believe that she is.

John Lewis often tilts at windmills, but nice to see he is acknowledging reality over the federal bench nominations. Michelle Nunn has been smart not to take up these liberal lines that are going nowhere.

Using the NYT Koch brothers attack is blatant bias and partisanship, but par for the course for this blog.

@Jefferson1776, Handel can thank Perdue for that. Her campaign was fizzling before he criticized her for her lack of education. Since then, she's picked up maybe 10% - 15% in the polls (depending on which polls you believe).

So says someone who does not and will never live near Underground Atlanta. Atlanta is already notorious for its strip clubs, party scene and conventions. It is not trying to become the next Las Vegas or New Orleans. Since Georgia State regrettably has no interest in redeveloping Underground Atlanta, just sell the place to developers. Or use Kyle Wingfield's idea to turn it into a charter school laboratory.

@MiltonMan Of course you have plenty of evidence where Lewis' actons and speech have shown him to be a racist. I mean, you do don't you? Please share with us, otherwise you will appear to be just another TP tard making baseless allegations with no proof to substantiate your claim.

Meanwhile, John Lewis has all the reminders he needs of Southern White racism,. every time he looks in the mirror and sees the various scars from having his head cracked open by bigots. The fact that he is a good man, free of hatred for anyone after what he endured, is a testament to his character. You, though, not so much. You have a tons of character, it just happens to be all bad

@EdUktr I was wondering the same thing about the ads by gingrey and kingston shown above. Neither happens to mention that they are running as repuppies. What are they ashamed of? Why are they pretending not to be repuppies?

@linuxfanatic Michelle Nunn is smart enough to know that this is just the Primary and no need to bring out the big guns until you have an actual opponent.

Besides, what are the Repub candidates saying besides they will repeal Obamacare and touting how conservative they are? Why would a Dem want to wade into that mess? Just sit back and watch them eat one another alive and then deal with the survivor.

Still haven't explained why you opposed the Falcons stadium downtown but support the Braves stadium in Cobb. A quick recap: while the Cobb "plan" is for the Braves to pay them back $370 million that will be diverted from Cobb's revenue with rent over 60 years (while the Braves are only contractually obligated to stay in Cobb for 30, and are free to demand a new stadium when those 30 years are up!), the city will use an OUTSIDE revenue source to pay its $200 million (on a 1.1 billion project) in 25 years. Or why you opposed the $300 million public-private expansion of Georgia State downtown to support a fast growing campus and an existing FBS football program, but support the well over $150 million that Kennesaw State is spending to expand and add a new FCS football program from scratch.

Explain how your centrism works. Or is your centrism merely bias and partisanship of your own? Lots of people have asked you to explain your diverging opinions of the two stadium deals and you have always tucked your tail and ran away. Here is your chance to step up, and also explain your differences of opinion with respect to Kennesaw State and Georgia State at the same time. At least Georgia State is able to better itself without a hostile takeover of the state's second best STEM school with SPSU! Actually GSU is the state's second best STEM school, so make SPSU the third best.

@linuxfanatic I live ITP and use to work within walking distance. And by the way, it isn't exactly a residential area to begin with. About the only people who live nearby are the college students. What was it that I said that made you think I was some OTP'er who blindly hates urbanity? Are you one of those people who fight for freedom when it's a freedom you agree with? I never gamble, nor do I EVER go to strip clubs. I do, however, realize how much revenue we are missing out on by NOT legalizing gambling, prostitution, marijuana, etc. It's too bad that people limit their view of freedom to what they see in their tiny mirrors.

First, I don't oppose Ga State's bid on expansion since
I don't live in Atlanta or Fulton County - up to their representatives
and voters. I merely pointed out the double standard (really just gross
political bias) of the AJC that does not seem to have a problem like
they did with Cobb County and the Braves.

Second, Cobb County has
CID taxes and hotel/motel taxes just like Atlanta dedicated to local
improvements - so your argument is bogus. They also have increasing
property and sales taxes associated with the surrounding area and expected added
businesses along with the Braves fees which are projected to more than
pay for the bond. There is also the added jobs in a locally depressed employment area. The AJC and other Democrats were miffed the Braves
moved when Atlanta/Fulton County called what they thought was a bluff
demand for renovations of the stadium, local area, and transportation.

You don't find it strange that there was no money to keep the Braves with their 80 games a year, but now there are public funds for a major football stadium renovation with 8 games a year and the transformation of the surrounding area?

@EdUktr Well, maybe someday that well kept secret, little known fact that Nunn is a Dem will eventually be leaked to the backwoods where you reside, and you can expose her as a Democrat. But don't expect a Pulitzer for your investigative reporting efforts, you're only a year or two behind everyone else.

'Til then, though, keep posting that same tired comment after every mention of Nunn. It will continue to remind everyone how vapid, bovine and lacking in ideas you TP types are.

You are through debating this because nothing that you said is true. Kasim Reed said that the Braves wanted $250 million to stay, and even then were not willing to make a long term commitment. The Braves never said that he was wrong. And the core part of the GSU deal is not football fans to their 30,000 seat stadium, but GSU becoming the largest university in the state and possibly one of the 10 largest in the country. And the development that the Braves wanted around Turner Field ... it will still get done except it would be BETTER, because of instead of just being bars and restaurants that will sit empty when the Braves aren't playing (and a lot of times when they are!) because the area demographics will just never support baseball no matter how much money you invest, this deal will include housing!

You are talking receipts and tax revenue? I am talking people who will live in the city, pay property taxes, shop in grocery stores, buy cars, you name it! 5000 people who stay in your city full time is worth more than 50,000-100,000 people who visit for one night and run back to Forsyth complaining about all "those people" they had to walk past to get to the game! Seriously, haven't you studied economics at all?

Atlanta would have had to chip in millions for Turner Field improvements and would have lost revenue streams like parking.

The Ga State deal requires little city investment, in fact I believe the state will have to pay market price for the property. In addition the city will add to their property tax digest with the addition of the new private development across the street.

Atlanta will lose little if anything.

Oh, and the Braves keeping the Atlanta address truly is the cherry on Cobb's crap sandwich!

@linuxfanatic - A minor college is not going to attract nearly the fans the Braves did - hence a lot less in receipts and tax revenue. The Braves only wanted minor $$ in comparison to what it will take for GSU to convert. Cobb County has to start from scratch, yet it still works financially. Hope this Plan B works as well as possible, but little doubt in my mind that Cobb got the much better deal that Atlanta passed up. Done debating this issue, but it should slow the AJC's repeated attacks on Cobb County since there is the direct comparison now assuming this deal gets done.

You cannot "expose" double standards when you have them of your own. You opposed the Falcons stadium right up until you found out that Cobb County was getting one. Then you began to cheerlead for Cobb County's stadium - even though it is obviously coming at much worse terms for the taxpayer - and never walked back your previous opposition to the Falcons stadium deal. Incidentally, it wasn't just Democrats who were miffed when the Braves moved. Plenty of Republicans were too. Why? Because it was bad for the city. The Atlanta paper is going to advocate for Atlanta, just like the Cobb paper does for Cobb, the Gwinnett paper does for Gwinnett, etc. A city taking a hit is a city issue, not a partisan one, and if you were actually a centrist you would realize that. Of course, people who do not want Atlanta to lose the $100 million a year plus the national media exposure that the Braves bring (when they are winning that is) were going to hate the move. Why would you expect them to cheer it? I don't see the folks in Cobb County cheering Coca-Cola moving their IT operations downtown. Instead, the Cobb County paper ripped the move. Just like they ripped the decision of the company that owns the Post Apartments to move from Cobb to Atlanta. The folks in Gwinnett County aren't cheerleading NCR's decision to investigate relocating downtown (if Georgia Tech or the city will give them a facility) either.

"You don't find it strange that there was no money to keep the Braves with their 80 games a year, but now there are public funds for a major football stadium renovation with 8 games a year and the transformation of the surrounding area?"

It is called priorities. The city could not afford to keep both. So they chose to take a project where they only have to pay $200 million out of $1.1 billion instead of $370 million out of $650 million. And where the Falcons stadium is coming from a revenue source that isn't generated by Atlanta citizens or businesses and can't be touched by the city without state approval and can only be used for projects just like that, Atlanta would have had to take money from their general fund to keep the Braves. Comparing the GWCC hotel/motel tax to a CID and the Cobb hotel/motel tax ignores the differences between and restrictions on the two revenue sources. The Cobb CID and hotel/motel tax revenue goes into the general fund, the GWCC does not. Many people have informed you of this, and you ignore them.

Also, yes, a football stadium is more valuable than a baseball one. Baseball owners like to pretend otherwise, like they are still America's #1 past time, but financially football teams and stadiums are more valuable. When confronted with the fact that the Braves are #2 in this city, Liberty Media had a temper tantrum and moved to a bedroom community (so much so that they have ATLANTA on their mailing address!) where they can be #1. Good for them and good for that bedroom community.

But the new Falcons stadium will also host MLS, will have major college football games, will host Final Fours and NCAA regionals and the SEC basketball tournament, can bid on Super Bowls and World Cups, major conventions that are too big for or conflict with GWCC ... it is a much more valuable property with a lot bigger economic and PR impact. Meanwhile the Braves facility is just good for baseball and the occasional outdoor rock concert. So it is not strange, it was a good business decision, and the only people who find it strange are the ones intent blasting the city's leadership no matter what they do.

And incidentally, this GSU deal will help the city more than keeping the Braves ever would have. It will allow Georgia State to finally become a major urban university. Lots of cities have baseball teams. Not that many cities have major urban research universities. 80 games a year, mostly people who will just attend the game and then get out of town as fast as they can, compared to thousands of students who will stay in the city continuously for 4 years (and live in the city with high paying jobs after they graduate not a few of them) plus faculty and staff. You do the math. By choosing the Falcons over the Braves and also getting the GSU expansion instead of giving 1/3 of a billion to the Braves, the city made out better each time. The reason is that baseball just isnt' as valuable as it used to be but football is booming and higher education is more important than ever (and soccer is growing).

So you can mock the city for losing the Braves now, but check out things in 15 years. You will see who won this. I bet 15 years from now Liberty Media won't even own the Braves. They will flip them for a quick profit just like the Braves' prior owners did.

ALL Cobb County property owners will be paying for the new Braves stadium!

The Falcons deal was a STATE deal, not city. The legislature ok'd the tax deal. The facilty will be STATE owned.

The_SoCalled_Centrist strongly opposed the state deal for the Falcons, then strongly supported a much worse Braves deal.

Almost all of the comments from the left and right criticized the Falcons deal. Those on the left were opposed to the Braves deal and stayed consistent, most on the right, praised the much worse Braves deal.

The Braves deal will create a massive traffic jam, you can't build out of that mess.

The new Georgia State project will be for a public university, The Cobb stadium gives hundreds of millions of tax dollars to a man worth $6 billion.

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. Sign in or register.